Hi Pavel, thanks for the feedback. > Not a big fan (sorry). > > We have already _way_ too many triggers, we don't want to have twice > that much. True. Doubling the amount of triggers is probably not a good idea. > > Better implementation might be to have a trigger attribute doing the > inverting. I agree. Especially since Jacek pointed out that some triggers do that already. > > Inverting really does not work with all the triggers; numlock-inverted > will not get too many > users. always-on-inverted... blink-inverted.... I guess it does make > sense for disk activity (but be warned disk can be continuously active > for quite a while). > > What triggers do you think make sense inverted? I think all kinds of activity indicators (disk-activity, mmc, usb, ide, nand, cpu, network, etc.) make sense. Guess I'll add a flags field to the led_trigger struct and have an invertible flag that specifies whether a trigger should be invertible or not. Thanks again, Tobias
